| People v Bruno |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03177 [127 AD3d 986] |
| April 15, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Antonio Bruno, Appellant. |
Peter J. Guadagnino, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, MorganJ. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Chun, J.), rendered October 29, 2008, convicting him of manslaughter in the firstdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony regarding his membership in aparticular gang and an incident that occurred one week prior to the subject stabbing wasrelevant to the issue of the defendant's motive and to his claim of justification, andexplained the relationship between the parties (see People v Kims, 24 NY3d 422 [2014]; People v Jordan, 74 AD3d986 [2010]; People vFaccio, 33 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2006]; People v Herrera, 287 AD2d 579[2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting suchevidence, since its probative value outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see generally People v Cass, 18NY3d 553, 560 [2012]; People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55 [1988]; Peoplev Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove thedefendant's justification defense and to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity ofthe finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor(see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the jury'srejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).
The defendant's allegations in support of his claim of ineffective assistance ofcounsel concern matter dehors the record and, thus, may not be reviewed on direct appeal(see People v Fisher, 121AD3d 1013 [2014]; Peoplev Walters, 120 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2014]; People v Crawford, 115 AD3d 672, 673 [2014]; People v McNair, 114 AD3d881 [2014]).
[*2] The sentenceimposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro,J.P., Leventhal, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.